forged...
they are doing a better job now.
That is actually done on an antique store 1960’s typewriter. They learned after Rathergate.
Two different typewriters. The lower case “L” on page 2 is incomplete throughout.
I love those “L”s and “l”s.
Where’s Howlin? and Buckhead?
Not well enough, the two pages were written on two different typewriters.
The first thing that jumped out at me was the date stamp(OCT 6 1967) at the top of the document. The font looks too modern for that time period. I may be wrong but to me it looks out of place. I think it is a forged document as well.
I’m with you in this one.
I’m sure they are thinking that this is so bad no one will question it. However, I would bet that back then the person typing that form would have had the pride in their typing to: (1) clean the strike keys, to give it crisp letters and (2) have the typeset adjusted for the lifting “L”. (3) No government forms have strikeouts.
they are doing a better job now. That is actually done on an antique store 1960’s typewriter. They learned after Rathergate.
Yep... what caught my eye was how "perfect" it was. A real typewritten letter OF THAT ERA would not display such uniformity in the darkness and definition of the letters. This letter was carefully typed (with Wite-Out and corrections) on a single sheet of white paper, with a freshly inked ribbon.
Letters back then were typed through several layers of carbon paper for copies (there were no photocopy machines back then). There would have been a typo or two. Some letters would have made a deeper, darker impression than others. The typist's fingers don't always strike in the center of each key or with the same amount of force or pressure.
Too perfect. Does NOT pass the smell test.
That was my exact thought when I first read the file. This is the only document with typewriter keys not working properly. I would like to see some other documents by W.L. Mix and see if they are the same.